First-time Mothers' Understanding and Use of a Pregnancy and Parenting Mobile App (The Baby Buddy App): Qualitative Study Using Appreciative Inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is increasing emphasis on early support for pregnant women to optimize the health and development of mothers and newborns. To increase intervention reach, digital and app-based interventions have been advocated. There are growing numbers of pregnancy health care apps with great variation in style, function, and objectives, but evidence about impact on pregnancy well-being and behavior change following app interaction is lacking. This paper reports on the qualitative arm of the independent multicomponent study exploring the use and outcomes of first-time mothers using the Baby Buddy app, a pregnancy and parenting support app, available in the National Health Service App Library and developed by a UK child health and well-being charity, Best Beginnings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand when, why, and how first-time mothers use the Baby Buddy app and the perceived benefits and challenges. METHODS: This paper reports on the qualitative arm of an independent, longitudinal, mixed methods study. An Appreciative Inquiry qualitative approach was used with semistructured interviews (17/60, 28%) conducted with new mothers, either by telephone or in a focus group setting. First-time mothers were recruited from 3 study sites from across the United Kingdom. Consistent with the Appreciative Inquiry approach, mothers were prompted to discuss what worked well and what could have been better regarding their interactions with the app during pregnancy. Thematic analysis was used, and findings are presented as themes with perceived benefits and challenges. RESULTS: The main benefit, or what worked well, for first-time mothers when using the app was being able to access new information, which they felt was reliable and easy to find. This led to a feeling of increased confidence in the information they accessed, thus supporting family and professional communication. The main challenge was the preference for face-to-face information with a health care professional, particularly around specific issues that they wished to discuss in depth. What could have been improved included that there were some topics that some mothers would have preferred in more detail, but in other areas, they felt well-informed and thus did not feel a need to seek additional information via an app. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study included a small sample, it elicited rich data and insights into first-time mothers' app interactions. The findings suggest that easily accessible pregnancy information, which is perceived as reliable, can support first-time mothers in communicating with health care professionals. Face-to-face contact with professionals was preferred, particularly to discuss specific and personalized needs. Further studies on maternal and professional digital support preferences after the COVID-19 global pandemic and how they facilitate antenatal education and informed decision-making are recommended, particularly because digital solutions remain as a key element in pregnancy and early parenting care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1017/S1463423618000294.

Factors influencing the utilisation of free-standing and alongside midwifery units in England: a qualitative research study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing the provision, utilisation and sustainability of midwifery units (MUs) in England. DESIGN: Case studies, using individual interviews and focus groups, in six National Health Service (NHS) Trust maternity services in England. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: NHS maternity services in different geographical areas of England Maternity care staff and service users from six NHS Trusts: two Trusts where more than 20% of all women gave birth in MUs, two Trusts where less than 10% of all women gave birth in MUs and two Trusts without MUs. Obstetric, midwifery and neonatal clinical leaders, managers, service user representatives and commissioners were individually interviewed (n=57). Twenty-six focus groups were undertaken with midwives (n=60) and service users (n=52). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors influencing MU use. FINDINGS: The study findings identify several barriers to the uptake of MUs. Within a context of a history of obstetric-led provision and lack of decision-maker awareness of the clinical and economic evidence, most Trust managers and clinicians do not regard their MU provision as being as important as their obstetric unit (OU) provision. Therefore, it does not get embedded as an equal and parallel component in the Trust's overall maternity package of care. The analysis illuminates how implementation of complex interventions in health services is influenced by a range of factors including the medicalisation of childbirth, perceived financial constraints, adequate leadership and institutional norms protecting the status quo. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant obstacles to MUs reaching their full potential, especially free-standing midwifery units. These include the lack of commitment by providers to embed MUs as an essential service provision alongside their OUs, an absence of leadership to drive through these changes and the capacity and willingness of providers to address women's information needs. If these remain unaddressed, childbearing women's access to MUs will continue to be restricted.

Mapping midwifery and obstetric units in England.

OBJECTIVE: to describe the configuration of midwifery units, both alongside&free-standing, and obstetric units in England. DESIGN: national survey amongst Heads of Midwifery in English Maternity Services SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) in England PARTICIPANTS: English Maternity Services Measurements descriptive statistics of Alongside Midwifery Units and Free-standing Midwifery Units and Obstetric Units and their annual births/year in English Maternity Services FINDINGS: alongside midwifery units have nearly doubled since 2010 (n = 53-97); free-standing midwifery units have increased slightly (n = 58-61). There has been a significant reduction in maternity services without either an alongside or free-standing midwifery unit (75-32). The percentage of all births in midwifery units has trebled, now representing 14% of all births in England. This masks significant differences in percentage of all births in midwifery units between different maternity services with a spread of 4% to 31%. KEY CONCLUSIONS: In some areas of England, women have no access to a local midwifery unit, despite the National Institute for Health&Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommending them as an important place of birth option for low risk women. The numbers of midwifery units have increased significantly in England since 2010 but this growth is almost exclusively in alongside midwifery units. The percentage of women giving birth in midwifery units varies significantly between maternity services suggesting that many midwifery units are underutilised. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both the availability and utilisation of midwifery units in England could be improved.

Service factors causing delay in specialist assessment for TIA and minor stroke: a qualitative study of GP and patient perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how service factors contribute to delays to specialist assessment following transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysis by constant comparison. SETTING: Leicester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients diagnosed with TIA or minor stroke, at hospital admission or in a rapid-access TIA clinic (n=42), general practitioners (GPs) of participating patients if they had been involved in the patients' care (n=18). DATA: Accounts from patients and GPs of factors contributing to delay following action to seek help from a healthcare professional (HCP). RESULTS: The following categories of delay were identified. First, delay in assessment in general practice following contact with the service; this related to availability of same day appointments, and the role of the receptionist in identifying urgent cases. Second, delays in diagnosis by the HCP first consulted, including GPs, optometrists, out-of-hours services, walk-in centres and the emergency department. Third, delays in referral after a suspected diagnosis; these included variable use of the ABCD(2) (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration, Diabetes) risk stratification score and referral templates in general practice, and referral back to the patients' GP in cases where he/she was not the first HCP consulted. CONCLUSIONS: Primary and emergency care providers need to review how they can best handle patients presenting with symptoms that could be due to stroke or TIA. In general practice, this may include receptionist training and/or triage by a nurse or doctor. Mechanisms need to be established to enable direct referral to the TIA clinic when patients whose symptoms have resolved present to other agencies. Further work is needed to improve diagnostic accuracy by non-specialists.

Delay between symptom onset and clinic attendance following TIA and minor stroke: the BEATS study.

BACKGROUND: rapid specialist assessment of patients with transient ischaemic attack (TIA) reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. National guidelines advise that high-risk patients are assessed within 24 h and low-risk patients within 7 days. AIM: to quantify delay and map pathways taken by patients from symptom onset to specialist assessment. DESIGN: retrospective cohort study. SETTING: rapid access TIA clinic. METHODS: structured interviews with 278 patients newly diagnosed with TIA (222) or minor stroke (56), and examination of medical records. RESULTS: of the 133 high-risk TIA patients, 11 (8%) attended the clinic within 24 h of symptom onset; of the 89 low-risk TIA patients, 47 (53%) attended within 7 days. Median delay between symptom onset and seeking help from a healthcare professional (HCP) was 4.0 h (IQR 0.5, 41.3). Delay was less if symptoms were correctly interpreted but not reduced by a publicity campaign (FAST) to encourage an urgent response. Most patients (156, 56%) first contacted a general practitioner (GP) and 46 (17%) called an ambulance or attended the emergency department. Over a third (36%) had a second consultation with an HCP before attending the clinic, and this was more likely in those presenting to paramedics, out of hours GP services or optometry. Time to clinic attendance was less if an emergency pathway was used and greater if patients were seen by a second HCP. CONCLUSIONS: factors contributing to delay include incorrect interpretation of symptoms and failure to invoke emergency services. Delays after presentation could be addressed by direct referral by out of hours services, paramedics and optometrists.

Long term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of services for urinary symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Given the extent and priority of urinary symptoms there is little evidence available to inform service provision in relation to the long term effects of interventions. This study aims to determine the long term (6 year) clinical effectiveness and costs of a new continence nurse led service compared to standard care for urinary symptoms. METHODS: A long term follow-up study of a 2-arm, non-blinded randomised controlled trial that recruited from a community based population between 1998-2000 in Leicestershire and Rutland UK was undertaken. 3746 men and women aged 40 years and over were followed up from the original trial. The continence nurse practitioner (CNP) intervention comprised a continence service provided by specially trained nurses delivering evidence-based interventions using pre-determined care pathways. The standard care (SC) arm comprised access to existing primary care including General Practitioner and continence advisory services in the area. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Improvement in one or more symptom. Secondary outcomes included: a) Leicester Impact scale; b) patient perception of problem; c) number of symptoms alleviated and cost-effectiveness; all were recorded at long term follow-up (average 6 years) post-randomisation. RESULTS: Overall at long-term follow-up (average 6 years) significantly more individuals in the CNP group (72%) had improved (i.e had fewer symptoms) compared to those in the SC group (67%) (difference of 5% 95% (CI = 0.6 to 9;p = 0.02)). CONCLUSION: The differences in outcome between the two randomised groups shown immediately post treatment had decreased by half in terms of symptom improvement at long term follow-up. Although the difference was statistically significant, the clinical significance may not be, although the direction of the difference favoured the new CNP service.